glossary_remove

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

没有注解提供行为信息，因此描述需完全承担披露责任。仅说“移除”表明这是一种变更操作，但未说明是否永久、是否可撤销、权限要求、对不存在词条的行为、批量删除的边界等关键副作用。

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

描述只有一句话，没有冗余信息，动词和资源都放在最前面，结构上非常简洁。但这种简洁以牺牲行为信息为代价，因此不算完美。

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

工具是删除类操作，且无注解、无输出 schema、无参数说明，描述却只有一句话，缺少操作前提、永久性说明、失败场景和返回值预期。对于一个执行破坏性操作的 1 参数工具，信息量明显不足。

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema 描述覆盖率为 0%，且描述完全没有解释 terms 参数的语义、格式或匹配规则。虽然“词条”与 terms 存在字面关联，但未说明数组元素是否为精确匹配、为空时行为、重复词条如何处理等，描述未能弥补 schema 的空白。

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

描述使用明确的动词“移除”和资源“词典词条”，表明这是从词典中删除条目的操作。与兄弟工具 glossary_add、glossary_list 在动词上形成自然区分，但未显式说明与它们的边界。

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

没有说明何时使用此工具、何时应使用 glossary_add 或 glossary_list，也没有说明前置条件或替代方案。唯一能推断用途的只有动词“移除”和兄弟工具名称。

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.